Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Watkins

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some good discussion here. However, Struway2's analysis is strong and effectively shifts the consensus. Kubigula (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Watkins

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-pro football player who has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player has never played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence of sufficient non-trivial independent media coverage to show general notability. Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the editor who accepted the page through Articles for Creation I think I'd better explain why. While it is true that the player doesn't meet the football guidelines, it is very clear that with multiple independent news sources, it passes the general notability guidelines easily, which is more important (as it is a requirement of articles that pass the football guidelines too). --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. ~Feedintm^Parley 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Must admit I'm surprised that people think this article passes WP:BIO. Disregarding stuff from Luton Town F.C., which clearly isn't independent of the subject or those associated with him, source #4 quotes his manager saying if he keeps working hard he might get into the first team squad; #11 quotes his new manager thinking he did well in pre-season; #3, a week later, quotes his manager thinking he did well in pre-season and Watkins being pleased the manager is giving him a chance; #13 is BBC Sport reporting his new contract with Luton; #15 quotes his manager thinking he's done well in pre-season but saying people shouldn't get carried away, and reports Watkins' selection for the England C team; #8 is a report of a match in which he scored twice against a team from three divisions below Luton; and the other independent sources are name on team sheets, presence at a club function, etc.

I'm an inclusionist by nature, and wouldn't !vote to delete a decently referenced article about a footballer who'd actually had a career at below-WP:NFOOTBALL level. This lad hasn't, yet, and the lack of genuine content in these multiple sources only serves to demonstrate that there's nothing yet to write about. WP:BIO says that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", and the explanatory note says that a 200-page biography is non-trivial where a one-line directory listing is not. I'd suggest the sources here (quite understandably given the subject has done very little in his career as yet) are an awful lot closer to the one-liner than the biog. If the number, quality and content of the sources in this article really constitute enough significant coverage to pass WP:BIO, then we'd able to create and keep articles on pretty well any footballer down to the seventh level of English football, possibly further. Which is interesting, given that the prevailing view around Wikipedia seems to be that WP:NSPORT should be made stricter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget the players of the Irish League who get deleted because their league is not fully professional

Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope that these days, an article about a player from a top but not fully professional league where the article contained evidence of significant media coverage wouldn't be kneejerk-deleted. But I don't see the relevance of Irish League player deletions to this AfD, I'm afraid. Presumably this wasn't some sort of POINTy nomination? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all four recent nominations (two of which were very badly thought out) were a reaction to this. Number 5 7 23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it satisfies the GNG. In the case of this footballer, there may be no good reason he received the (small but sufficient) amount of coverage that he did, but deletion is for subjects that are not notable, rather than those who don't deserve to be. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure anyone was discussing "deserving". Only that a person who'd had a career in their chosen field would have generated sufficient media coverage above the routine to be notable in the WP:BIO sense. Because this subject has done little in his chosen field, coverage of him is limited, routine, and essentially trivial in nature. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and probably WP:GNG per Struway2's comments. Due to the nature of football coverage including match reports, it's always easy to find a player's name mentioned frequently in the media, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "significant" coverage (unlike, say that that Sonny Pike received). Number 5 7 23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, a lot of the football coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:NTEMP - nothing significant that passes notability. --Jimbo^[online] 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As we can see above, references are not significant coverage and do not appear to assert notability per the guidelines we have on Wikipedia. Cloudz 679 11:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Struway's compelling analysis proves that the coverage does not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable third party sources and meets the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Struway2 has explained convincingly that the coverage tends to be trivial. Sandstein 08:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only independent sources referenced are the BBC (which lists him but not mentions him) and some local newspapers of unknown importance. And he plays for a fifth tier club. Also per Jimbo_online. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.